where will this end?

Pete111

Uncertain wrote: »

Interesting comments....

Obviously it is possible to put all kinds of terms in an employee handbook. That doesn't in itself mean they are watertight and binding and they cannot of course take away a person's statutory rights.

It is a bit like putting up a sign in a car park saying we are not responsible for any damage. If you are negligent you are responsible whatever your sign says!

I agree you can probably have a clause requiring an employee to see a company doctor under certain circumstances. Indeed some occupations may require frequent medical appointments. In the absence of such a clause you cannot force an employee to see another doctor. I have personally been in this position. Generally it is best for the employee to agree. As I said above, the doctor has a clear legal duty to the patient and not to the company, whoever pays him.

Agree - we would never remove SSP, just CSP

Agree with the last point re Occ health duty of care also. Used this last year for a case of depression and they largely concurred with the GP. However. they did suggest better alternatives for treatment which ended up helping the employee significantly and got her back to work.

SandC

jazzys wrote: »

Yes i booked our holiday in the summer. My ex wasn't going anywhere though, i was having a holiday and staying in her home.
Yes she gave her employer loads of notice.
She has worked for the company for 7 years
she has had no sick leave in the last year

J

You can surely see the employer's point of view here though? If she has had no time off sick in the past year how are her new management supposed to be aware of her medical history in relation to mental health issues? The HR department will not make every manager aware of each employee's medical or attendance history as they have no reason to know and I would imagine your ex wife would be horrified if she thought her health was being discussed between management. It is not the company's fault that previous management were aware of certain issues and new management are not - because as her attendance has been 100% there is no reason for them to unless it affects her work in some other way.

Also, she was refused holidays at Christmas despite giving 'loads of notice' which makes it even more dodgy that she took sick leave as how could she have known, with all this notice, that she would be too unwell to work at Xmas if the original request was months in advance?

euronorris

pitkin2020 wrote: »

Most companies don't like staff to take holiday if they are sick is it mis-represents their sickness record. Yes I know some do but if it becomes frequent they aren't going to keep letting you take short notice holiday because you are unwell. It's also so managers can see if a pattern or trend is forming around the sickness periods, for example someone who works shift is sick every other monday morning, (early shift) and keeps taking holiday mixed in with a bit sick. If the employee is allowed to constantly take holiday its hard to see the pattern as its broken up with authorised absence, holiday.

I completely understand your point, but simply asking if it's possible should not result in a disciplinary.

Perhaps a meeting with the employee to advise them of the companies policy in respect of this would have been more appropriate in this instance?

pitkin2020

Uncertain wrote: »

You are mixing two issues here......

You are quite right that that if you have a history of medical absences the employer can take steps to dismiss on the grounds of capability, however genuine the illness may be. At an extreme you might be on a life support machine for a year (you can't be more ill than that!) and the employer could go through due process and terminate your employment without any comeback.

This is a different situation. This lady had a week or so off sick (certified by her doctor) but has otherwise a perfectly acceptable sickness record. The only point at issue is the unfortunate remark (threat if you must) that she made.

However, she has a medical history that suggests that this was due to mental health issues and her doctor is apparently willing to write to the firm and say so.

If the firm sack her for this, or take any disciplinary action, they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning if it goes to a tribunal.

They cannot possibly get another doctor (even if she agrees to see one) to tell them FOR CERTAIN if she was or was not too ill to work on a particular week in the past. He can only tell them how her current health might affect her work now and in the immediate future.

Yes, like almost any employment situation, they could just sack her and take the view that if it goes to an ET it will end up costing them some money. The law doesn't allow for the manager or HR dept to be carted off to jail for breaking these employment laws, just a civil remedy.

In a way every employee in the country is in this position. If they don't like you the firm CAN just sack you, but you may be able to get some financial compensation if they don't do it properly.

Agree with most of the above, I was merely pointing out to others who think a doctors noteis all they need not to get dismissed. If the OP really only has had this time off sick she should be fine as I said. The investigation will be merely a formality for the comments made about going sick.

pitkin2020

euronorris wrote: »

I completely understand your point, but simply asking if it's possible should not result in a disciplinary.

Perhaps a meeting with the employee to advise them of the companies policy in respect of this would have been more appropriate in this instance?

There is a difference though between asking and telling. The op said if she didn't get the holiday she would go sick. She should of said " I am very unwell and don't think im going to be well enough to come to work, would I be able to take hoiday leave instead of sick leave"

If you tell someone your going to do something regardless they won't be inclined to help you, it's human nature as no one really likes to be TOLD what to do.

euronorris

pitkin2020 wrote: »

There is a difference though between asking and telling. The op said if she didn't get the holiday she would go sick. She should of said " I am very unwell and don't think im going to be well enough to come to work, would I be able to take hoiday leave instead of sick leave"

If you tell someone your going to do something regardless they won't be inclined to help you, it's human nature as no one really likes to be TOLD what to do.

Agreed. We are receiving the information 2nd hand and we weren't there, so we don't really know how this subject was approached by the OP's ex wife.

If she is suffering from a lot of stress, it is completely possible that she approached it whilst in an agitated state and therefore didn't really go about it the right way.

Then again, she may have and the Manager is digging his heels in (with the disciplinary) for whatever reason.

Either way, I hope this can be resolved amicably for both the EE & the ER.

Zazen999

pitkin2020 wrote: »

There is a difference though between asking and telling. The op said if she didn't get the holiday she would go sick. She should of said " I am very unwell and don't think im going to be well enough to come to work, would I be able to take hoiday leave instead of sick leave"

If you tell someone your going to do something regardless they won't be inclined to help you, it's human nature as no one really likes to be TOLD what to do.

Or perhaps, I am going to be very unwell; as she gave her employer loads of notice of this fact.

andygb

SandC wrote: »

Also, she was refused holidays at Christmas despite giving 'loads of notice' which makes it even more dodgy that she took sick leave as how could she have known, with all this notice, that she would be too unwell to work at Xmas if the original request was months in advance?

This is exactly why I asked the OP how much notice was given regarding the holiday request.
It beggars belief that anyone would think that this sickness was coincidental, when the OP's ex partner had asked for and been refused leave possibly months earlier, and then stated that she would "throw a sickie".

rupee99

You may believe it or not believe it, that is a matter of your opinion. Any disciplinary hearing, and, if applicable, Tribunal, will have to rely on evidence.

The best evidence available is that of a doctor who, in his or her professional opinion believed the woman unfit for work and certified accordingly.

Whether this beggars belief or not is irrelevent. To take action for failing to work based upon suspicion and circumstantial evidence is rather like the famous line from a Western "We are going to give you a fair trial, then we are going to hang you."

They could, on the other hand take action against her on capacity, e.g. she is unable to work at their busiest times therefore she is not capable of doing her job.

Zazen999

rupee99 wrote: »

You may believe it or not believe it, that is a matter of your opinion. Any disciplinary hearing, and, if applicable, Tribunal, will have to rely on evidence.

The best evidence available is that of a doctor who, in his or her professional opinion believed the woman unfit for work and certified accordingly.

Whether this beggars belief or not is irrelevent. To take action for failing to work based upon suspicion and circumstantial evidence is rather like the famous line from a Western "We are going to give you a fair trial, then we are going to hang you."

They could, on the other hand take action against her on capacity, e.g. she is unable to work at their busiest times therefore she is not capable of doing her job.

but he didn't - he changed HIS story as well.

This is a complete nightmare from start to finish, and I totally agree with the capacity issue. I'm wondering if she has also told them that she isn't going to be there much after June either.